|JC Penny's penalty lifted - 3 months was enough punishment|
| 11:38 am on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Reports are circulating that JC Penney's penalty have been lifted. Google is quoted as saying words to the effect that enough is enough and the release was justified.
Do webmasters / siteowners believe they have been treated equally?
| 3:22 pm on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I realize it's an entirely different situation, but Penny's purposely games the system, and enough is enough after 3 months.
Panda, which is also 3 months past, is still clamped hard on some websites. It's not that I expect something to be "lifted," but, heaven forbid, google would give some specific guidance on the topic. (And despite whatever you quote from a google rep on this topic, in no way can you consider the statement clear and concise.)
Panda seems to be a situation, in part, where exploits of the way things used to be (such as using thin content to get long tail traffic) are being "not chosen by the algo for good rankings" (for lack of any other way not to say the word "penalized").
Exploiting something, possibly because that's what google seemed to want (because that's what their SERP's served up) is entirely different than purposely cheating the system (going against published guidelines).
Penny's cheated, was told what to clean up, evidently has done so, and life goes on for them. For us in the Panda boat, it's indefinite perpetuation of the non-penalty penalty. Because google won't issue clear and specific guidelines on how to resolve the issue.
| 4:12 pm on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I know I would not have gotten just 3 months. This is another blatant way brands kill small sites, in addition to the major bias Google has in the algo for them.
@Broadway we have Panda threads open but deleting thin pages and adding the content is not enough. I don't know if the colors have to be a shade more this way or that way, or other super-secret stuff. I'm talking about adding good, useful content that is more /better than what's ranking for example.